Why is the local NAACP trying to abridge
my right to FREE SPEECH?
my right to FREE SPEECH?
by Dave Weinbaum
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
| COMMENTS (cont) |
okie the threat killer
Better leave Billy Bob alone..He knows how to handle a gun and put food on the table...When the going
gets rough it will be the likes of the Billy Bobs in this country I will count on.
The Maynard
i known him all my life and drank with him side by side at the bar many a night....anyone who is close to
him know it was a legit question as cirrossis is a common cause of death among heavy drinkers....who
are you to judge what is right or wrong? the same question was asked to me if i knew or not by others
your the one who needs to get off your high horse maynard
What you just told everyone on here is that your a drunk....... Is that right.
Let me give you some info Obama Is "NOT" the new Messiah he is the anti christ who bow's to the
Muslim religion.
JMO once again
matrsnot
so you dont think people should have to take a safety course to be able to get a permit? walk in get a
permit and walk out
Again, you know not of what you speak. I have had mine for over 5 years now. I know what the course
entails and what it does not. You don't seem to know that. You pay the money and go through the
course and then you will understand what I am talking about. Safety is only one part of that course.
Learning a bit of the law concerning use of force and where you can and cannot carry is part of it. The
only test taken is that of shooting with two different weapons. One semiautomatic and one revolver.
And you must qualify. Failure to qualify will disqualify you from obtaining the permit. Fingerprinting
and of course a clean record are required here also.
---
Better leave Billy Bob alone..He knows how to handle a gun and put food on the table...When the going
gets rough it will be the likes of the Billy Bobs in this country I will count on.
Thank you Okie. I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. Literacy is not a requirement for exercising a
right. And those old country boys certainly do know how to shoot!!!!!!!!!
darrellmaurina
Better leave Billy Bob alone..He knows how to handle a gun and put food on the table...When the going
gets rough it will be the likes of the Billy Bobs in this country I will count on.
And Okie, you know me well enough to know I agree with you. My point is that no matter what I think
about illiterate Billy Bob owning a gun and using it, he's got the constitutionally guaranteed right to do so.
Nobody has to pass a test to use their rights guaranteed under the constitution. That's why they are
rights, not privileges.
Now as a practical matter, I think there's a good chance most illiterate Billy Bobs know their guns a
whole heck of a lot better than a lot of properly licensed drivers know their cars.
Furthermore, the original intent of the Second Amendment is obvious -- large percentages of people in
the late 1700s were illiterate and could never have passed a gun safety test because they couldn't have
read it. If it were not for lots of illiterate Billy Bobs who knew their guns much better than the British
redcoats because their survival in pioneer life depended on their ability to defend themselves and hunt for
food, we would not have won the Revolutionary War.
The Maynard
Thank you Okie. I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. Literacy is not a requirement for exercising a
right. And those old country boys certainly do know how to shoot!!!!!!!!!
2 of the highest Medal Winner of
WW1 Alvin C. York and WW2 Audie Murphy
were "PURE" country boy Billy Bobbers if there ever was one And Audie was 5'5" and weight 110 lbs and
afraid of nothing or nobody.
God Bless the American Soilder
---
And it falls under his personal business, not yours. If you haven't figured out much, you should have
atleast learned I don't like peoples personal business discussed, even politicians.
If you tiptoe through the tulips it ain't my business. If you tiptoe through the boards rules it can be.
My warning lite is dimming
CriTTer
What you just told everyone on here is that your a drunk....... Is that right.
Let me give you some info Obama Is "NOT" the new Messiah he is the anti christ who bow's to the
Muslim religion.
JMO once again
no i quit drinking 15 years ago...he did not i use to be a drunk yes that is true and everyone who knows
me knew that i was. some dont know when to quit ,,i got lucky and beat alcoholism after it was
discovered i had "bridging fibrosis " of the liver i decided i would like to live a little longer then i would of
if i kept drinking
okie the thread killer
how did this thread morph into this 12 step meltdown?
CriTTer
how did this thread morph into this 12 step meltdown?
maynard decided to change the subject
okie the thread killer
guess it worked, huh....I drink and I have a gun...How's that..now they are combined.
CriTTer
guess it worked, huh....I drink and I have a gun...How's that..now they are combined.
i have no problem with gun owners or drinkers, many are my friends
okie the thread killer
works out well, living where we live, lol..it pretty much applies to everyone I know.
Digital Narcosis
What does being Jewish have to do with anything?
I don't want to read the article. Just tell me.
Dave Weinbaum replies:
That's a good question. It wasn't in the title I submitted. Darrell?
Sulla Felix
For the record, Iran technically isn't Fascist.......it's Theocratic......which is just LIKE Fascism, except it's
in the name of Allah.
The irony, for those that wish to understand the history of what we are talking about, is that Islam
predates fascism by over a thousand years.....but the connection to Fascism is far from non-existent.
Islam represented at it's founding a fundamental evolution in religion and the power of religious ideology.
It was the FIRST religion to truly become a mobilizing force for expansion and conquest.
Now, I know what my leftwing colleagues will shout 'But Christianity, blah, blah, blah'......but they would
be wrong. Christianity represented an evolution in religious ideology as well......it's power was in taking
over existing institutions from the inside. But Christianity itself did not have the power to motivate
large masses of people to conquest. The conquest involving the Christian west had more to do with the
institutions it took over from the inside, namely the Roman Empire, which was expansionist from long
before the birth of Christ, and that, in point of FACT, Christianity, far from motivating expansion,
blunted Roman Expansionism.
Islam, on the other hand, motivated it's followers to the point that, from the Birth of Mohammad, to
200 years after it's death, Mohammadan warriors had conquered nearly everything from Persia to the
Iberian Peninsula, and had they not been turned back at the Battle of Tours, in 732, we might all be
Muslim today.
The fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity (i'm not a Christian by the way, so I don't
have a dog in this fight) is how each views salvation......and this is a CRUCIAL fundamental difference,
and why Islam, more than any other major religion, is prone to the kind of ideology that we see in
Fascism......in Christianity, salvation was bought by the sacrifice of Christ, and merely needs to be
accepted by those who would receive salvation. In Islam, however, salvation can ONLY be attained
through religious struggle.....Jihad....now the apologists will say (and they are partially right) that such
religious Jihad need not, nor always is, physical struggle.....and that is true.....but the structure of the
religion is such that it is VERY easy to use Jihad as a motivating factor in violence, more so than in any
other major religion......especially when one understands that Islamists view the world in to two
spheres........Dar-al Islam and Dar-al Harb.
In a great many ways these facts create in Islam a very robust religion, but one needs to be blind in order
to ignore the potential perils of such an ideology.
Sulla Felix
'How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy,
which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects
are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of
commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.'
'A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.
The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property,
either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam
has ceased to be a great power among men.'
'Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social
development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being
moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout
Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the
strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern
Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.'
Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50, London: Longmans, Green
Co., 1899).
HarryE
Wow. Thanks, Sulla. That was a great opine and confirms what is already known by many. Great
research!
Sulla Felix
It always interests me, Harry, that many on the left like to point to Christianity's history of 'excess', and
inevitably recall the Crusades, simultaneously as evidence of that excess, and as a way of giving initial
legitimacy to 1,000 years of alleged Islamic victimhood and anger. What they fail to mention (and gets
COMPLETELY glossed over in most public school curriculum on the subject) is that the Crusades
themselves were not the cause of Islamic aggression, but a CONSEQUENCE of Islamic aggression. The
Islamists invaded Europe in the 8th Century......the 1st Crusade wasn't until the 11th Century, 300 years
LATER! The Islamists invaded Europe, conquered the Iberian Peninsula (Modern day Spain and
Portugal) and attempted to Invade the rest of Europe. Yet the Crusades, which was a response to Islamic
aggression to counter a threat to the very existence of Christian Europe, is viewed by modern Islamists
and their leftist apologists as the PROVOCATION and justification for modern Islamic anger.....and
Historically that perspective is faulty and myopic. The truth is that until from the invasion of Europe in
the 8th Century, until the Battle of Vienna in 1683, nearly 1,000 years, Islam was trying to destroy the
Christian west, and only in the last 400 years has Western technological superiority forced Islamists back
in their current borders from their 1,000 year onslaught. The reality is that modern day Islamic
Fundamentalists really want to return to the glory days of the expanding Islamic Empire. At it's roots
Fundamentalist Islam still has as it's core tenant to spread Islam by the word or by the SWORD!
HarryE
Well, Islam has been very successful in the recent past of spreading it's reach to all corners of the world.
And with it, the violence. How could anyone condone the acts of a religion that advocates killing other
people just because they don't conform to it's own beliefs? A perfect example are 'honor killings' that
we've heard of lately, even here in America. The most recent is the Iraqi immigrant father who ran down
his 20 y/or daughter in a parking with his car just because she was becoming 'too Westernized'. Some
could argue that his acts were based upon his culteral beliefs, not his Islamic religious beliefs. But, they
would be wrong. His culture IS Islamic. His murderous action was based on his cultural beliefs which are
guided by his religion! His own child! This is what their God has advocated??? What kind of God is that?
Again, how about just the fact of a religion advocating the murdering of innocent people just for having
a different belief? It's barbarism! It's tyranny, fascist, communistic.............call it what you want..........I
call it wrong.
You are correct, Sulla, that the left liberals have persecuted the Christian right on many occasions. The
attacks of 9/11 were only 8 years ago, but it seems that there's more negative attention focused on the
Christian conservatives in our country and attacks on the rights conservative Americans in general than
there is outrage at the radical Islamic acts that are still continuing throughout the world. Not only on a
national level, but at a local level with this originating letter from the Rolla NAACP stands a perfect
example.
The same type of murderous acts being committed by these Islamic terroists have, thankfully, been
intercepted numerous times in our country. This has led to numerous arrests of individuals who are
Islamic, or Islamic sympathizers, who were going to commit these acts ONLY because we're Americans.
What I took from Dave's article is the focus of light being shined on the obvious racism that some
people believe is being used by the current administration. I understand that the Rolla NAACP's point of
this letter was to decry the 'racism' that they believed was put forth by Dave in his article, but I still
believe that they are just picking a fight because they think they have a right to and they have no other
way to remind people of their existence. This is inherently wrong on their part. If they're going to pick
up the fight of Islam, it's time to change their name and their mission statement. I think that any racism
is wrong and should not be tolerated. But their scolding of Dave's 1st Amendment right to free speech is
a misguided, unnecessary and fruitless fight.
Better leave Billy Bob alone..He knows how to handle a gun and put food on the table...When the going
gets rough it will be the likes of the Billy Bobs in this country I will count on.
The Maynard
i known him all my life and drank with him side by side at the bar many a night....anyone who is close to
him know it was a legit question as cirrossis is a common cause of death among heavy drinkers....who
are you to judge what is right or wrong? the same question was asked to me if i knew or not by others
your the one who needs to get off your high horse maynard
What you just told everyone on here is that your a drunk....... Is that right.
Let me give you some info Obama Is "NOT" the new Messiah he is the anti christ who bow's to the
Muslim religion.
JMO once again
matrsnot
so you dont think people should have to take a safety course to be able to get a permit? walk in get a
permit and walk out
Again, you know not of what you speak. I have had mine for over 5 years now. I know what the course
entails and what it does not. You don't seem to know that. You pay the money and go through the
course and then you will understand what I am talking about. Safety is only one part of that course.
Learning a bit of the law concerning use of force and where you can and cannot carry is part of it. The
only test taken is that of shooting with two different weapons. One semiautomatic and one revolver.
And you must qualify. Failure to qualify will disqualify you from obtaining the permit. Fingerprinting
and of course a clean record are required here also.
---
Better leave Billy Bob alone..He knows how to handle a gun and put food on the table...When the going
gets rough it will be the likes of the Billy Bobs in this country I will count on.
Thank you Okie. I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. Literacy is not a requirement for exercising a
right. And those old country boys certainly do know how to shoot!!!!!!!!!
darrellmaurina
Better leave Billy Bob alone..He knows how to handle a gun and put food on the table...When the going
gets rough it will be the likes of the Billy Bobs in this country I will count on.
And Okie, you know me well enough to know I agree with you. My point is that no matter what I think
about illiterate Billy Bob owning a gun and using it, he's got the constitutionally guaranteed right to do so.
Nobody has to pass a test to use their rights guaranteed under the constitution. That's why they are
rights, not privileges.
Now as a practical matter, I think there's a good chance most illiterate Billy Bobs know their guns a
whole heck of a lot better than a lot of properly licensed drivers know their cars.
Furthermore, the original intent of the Second Amendment is obvious -- large percentages of people in
the late 1700s were illiterate and could never have passed a gun safety test because they couldn't have
read it. If it were not for lots of illiterate Billy Bobs who knew their guns much better than the British
redcoats because their survival in pioneer life depended on their ability to defend themselves and hunt for
food, we would not have won the Revolutionary War.
The Maynard
Thank you Okie. I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. Literacy is not a requirement for exercising a
right. And those old country boys certainly do know how to shoot!!!!!!!!!
2 of the highest Medal Winner of
WW1 Alvin C. York and WW2 Audie Murphy
were "PURE" country boy Billy Bobbers if there ever was one And Audie was 5'5" and weight 110 lbs and
afraid of nothing or nobody.
God Bless the American Soilder
---
And it falls under his personal business, not yours. If you haven't figured out much, you should have
atleast learned I don't like peoples personal business discussed, even politicians.
If you tiptoe through the tulips it ain't my business. If you tiptoe through the boards rules it can be.
My warning lite is dimming
CriTTer
What you just told everyone on here is that your a drunk....... Is that right.
Let me give you some info Obama Is "NOT" the new Messiah he is the anti christ who bow's to the
Muslim religion.
JMO once again
no i quit drinking 15 years ago...he did not i use to be a drunk yes that is true and everyone who knows
me knew that i was. some dont know when to quit ,,i got lucky and beat alcoholism after it was
discovered i had "bridging fibrosis " of the liver i decided i would like to live a little longer then i would of
if i kept drinking
okie the thread killer
how did this thread morph into this 12 step meltdown?
CriTTer
how did this thread morph into this 12 step meltdown?
maynard decided to change the subject
okie the thread killer
guess it worked, huh....I drink and I have a gun...How's that..now they are combined.
CriTTer
guess it worked, huh....I drink and I have a gun...How's that..now they are combined.
i have no problem with gun owners or drinkers, many are my friends
okie the thread killer
works out well, living where we live, lol..it pretty much applies to everyone I know.
Digital Narcosis
What does being Jewish have to do with anything?
I don't want to read the article. Just tell me.
Dave Weinbaum replies:
That's a good question. It wasn't in the title I submitted. Darrell?
Sulla Felix
For the record, Iran technically isn't Fascist.......it's Theocratic......which is just LIKE Fascism, except it's
in the name of Allah.
The irony, for those that wish to understand the history of what we are talking about, is that Islam
predates fascism by over a thousand years.....but the connection to Fascism is far from non-existent.
Islam represented at it's founding a fundamental evolution in religion and the power of religious ideology.
It was the FIRST religion to truly become a mobilizing force for expansion and conquest.
Now, I know what my leftwing colleagues will shout 'But Christianity, blah, blah, blah'......but they would
be wrong. Christianity represented an evolution in religious ideology as well......it's power was in taking
over existing institutions from the inside. But Christianity itself did not have the power to motivate
large masses of people to conquest. The conquest involving the Christian west had more to do with the
institutions it took over from the inside, namely the Roman Empire, which was expansionist from long
before the birth of Christ, and that, in point of FACT, Christianity, far from motivating expansion,
blunted Roman Expansionism.
Islam, on the other hand, motivated it's followers to the point that, from the Birth of Mohammad, to
200 years after it's death, Mohammadan warriors had conquered nearly everything from Persia to the
Iberian Peninsula, and had they not been turned back at the Battle of Tours, in 732, we might all be
Muslim today.
The fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity (i'm not a Christian by the way, so I don't
have a dog in this fight) is how each views salvation......and this is a CRUCIAL fundamental difference,
and why Islam, more than any other major religion, is prone to the kind of ideology that we see in
Fascism......in Christianity, salvation was bought by the sacrifice of Christ, and merely needs to be
accepted by those who would receive salvation. In Islam, however, salvation can ONLY be attained
through religious struggle.....Jihad....now the apologists will say (and they are partially right) that such
religious Jihad need not, nor always is, physical struggle.....and that is true.....but the structure of the
religion is such that it is VERY easy to use Jihad as a motivating factor in violence, more so than in any
other major religion......especially when one understands that Islamists view the world in to two
spheres........Dar-al Islam and Dar-al Harb.
In a great many ways these facts create in Islam a very robust religion, but one needs to be blind in order
to ignore the potential perils of such an ideology.
Sulla Felix
'How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy,
which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects
are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of
commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.'
'A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.
The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property,
either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam
has ceased to be a great power among men.'
'Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social
development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being
moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout
Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the
strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern
Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.'
Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50, London: Longmans, Green
Co., 1899).
HarryE
Wow. Thanks, Sulla. That was a great opine and confirms what is already known by many. Great
research!
Sulla Felix
It always interests me, Harry, that many on the left like to point to Christianity's history of 'excess', and
inevitably recall the Crusades, simultaneously as evidence of that excess, and as a way of giving initial
legitimacy to 1,000 years of alleged Islamic victimhood and anger. What they fail to mention (and gets
COMPLETELY glossed over in most public school curriculum on the subject) is that the Crusades
themselves were not the cause of Islamic aggression, but a CONSEQUENCE of Islamic aggression. The
Islamists invaded Europe in the 8th Century......the 1st Crusade wasn't until the 11th Century, 300 years
LATER! The Islamists invaded Europe, conquered the Iberian Peninsula (Modern day Spain and
Portugal) and attempted to Invade the rest of Europe. Yet the Crusades, which was a response to Islamic
aggression to counter a threat to the very existence of Christian Europe, is viewed by modern Islamists
and their leftist apologists as the PROVOCATION and justification for modern Islamic anger.....and
Historically that perspective is faulty and myopic. The truth is that until from the invasion of Europe in
the 8th Century, until the Battle of Vienna in 1683, nearly 1,000 years, Islam was trying to destroy the
Christian west, and only in the last 400 years has Western technological superiority forced Islamists back
in their current borders from their 1,000 year onslaught. The reality is that modern day Islamic
Fundamentalists really want to return to the glory days of the expanding Islamic Empire. At it's roots
Fundamentalist Islam still has as it's core tenant to spread Islam by the word or by the SWORD!
HarryE
Well, Islam has been very successful in the recent past of spreading it's reach to all corners of the world.
And with it, the violence. How could anyone condone the acts of a religion that advocates killing other
people just because they don't conform to it's own beliefs? A perfect example are 'honor killings' that
we've heard of lately, even here in America. The most recent is the Iraqi immigrant father who ran down
his 20 y/or daughter in a parking with his car just because she was becoming 'too Westernized'. Some
could argue that his acts were based upon his culteral beliefs, not his Islamic religious beliefs. But, they
would be wrong. His culture IS Islamic. His murderous action was based on his cultural beliefs which are
guided by his religion! His own child! This is what their God has advocated??? What kind of God is that?
Again, how about just the fact of a religion advocating the murdering of innocent people just for having
a different belief? It's barbarism! It's tyranny, fascist, communistic.............call it what you want..........I
call it wrong.
You are correct, Sulla, that the left liberals have persecuted the Christian right on many occasions. The
attacks of 9/11 were only 8 years ago, but it seems that there's more negative attention focused on the
Christian conservatives in our country and attacks on the rights conservative Americans in general than
there is outrage at the radical Islamic acts that are still continuing throughout the world. Not only on a
national level, but at a local level with this originating letter from the Rolla NAACP stands a perfect
example.
The same type of murderous acts being committed by these Islamic terroists have, thankfully, been
intercepted numerous times in our country. This has led to numerous arrests of individuals who are
Islamic, or Islamic sympathizers, who were going to commit these acts ONLY because we're Americans.
What I took from Dave's article is the focus of light being shined on the obvious racism that some
people believe is being used by the current administration. I understand that the Rolla NAACP's point of
this letter was to decry the 'racism' that they believed was put forth by Dave in his article, but I still
believe that they are just picking a fight because they think they have a right to and they have no other
way to remind people of their existence. This is inherently wrong on their part. If they're going to pick
up the fight of Islam, it's time to change their name and their mission statement. I think that any racism
is wrong and should not be tolerated. But their scolding of Dave's 1st Amendment right to free speech is
a misguided, unnecessary and fruitless fight.